SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 479

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Umeshwar Pandy, J.
Data Ram, Bhodhi Singh
Versus
State of U.P.
CRIMINAL APPEAL 29 of 1987
Decided On : 16 March 2005
Criminal Appeal 29 Of 1987

Advocates:
B.P.TRIPATHI, G.B.Mishra, H.C.MISHRA, L.S.SRIVASTAVA, Mansoor Ahmad, S.K.Yadav, TEJ RAM, V.M.Zaidi, V.P.Srivastava,

The judgment establishes the legal principle of the presumption of acceptance of gratification, the duty of the accused to rebut the presumption, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the offense of accepting illegal gratification.

Headnote:

Corruption - Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 161 I. P. C., Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - 4, 5 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 161 I. P. C., Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and emphasized the presumption of acceptance of gratification unless the contrary is proved. The court also highlighted the duty of the accused to rebut the presumption and the lack of defense in this case. The judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offenses.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Lekhpal, was convicted for offenses under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting illegal gratification in exchange for measuring a piece of land. The prosecution's case was supported by witnesses and evidence from a trap operation conducted by the Vigilance Department.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found the prosecution successful in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offenses. The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the acceptance of money and the credibility of witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the offenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of acceptance of gratification, the duty of the accused to rebut the presumption, and the lack of defense in this case. The court found the evidence and witnesses' statements sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant was affirmed.

UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Sri V. P. Srivastava, Advocate and Sri H. C. Mishra, Advocate and the learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16. 12. 1986 whereby the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, has convicted and sentenced the appellant-Data Ram for the offences punishable under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1947.

( 3 ) THE background facts giving rise to an occasion for criminal prosecution of the appellant in short: are that the complainant Ram Chandra (PW 3) was allotted a peace of land by the Gaon samaj on lease (Patta) in a particular plot. He made a request to the appellant accused, who happened to be the Lekhpal of that village to make the measurement of the said allotted land in return whereof the appellant put his condition for giving a sum of Rs. 100/- to him as gratification. The complainant did not relish this demand of illegal gratification by way of bribe and as such, he approached the Vigilance Department of District Meerut by giving an application to this effect (Ext. ka-6) addressed to Dy. S. P. , Anti Corruption Organization on 14. 12. 1983. This application was given by him to O. P. Verma, who was then in charge of the Meerut Unit of vigilance (Anti Corruption) (PW 6), who immediately acting thereon passed a direction (Ext. Ka-8) deputing Inspector-Raj Pal Singh (PW 5) to lay a trap. It was disclosed in the petition itself that on 14. 12. 1983 the appellant accused would be coming to the bus stand Kharkhauda to receive the aforesaid sum of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification. Inspector Raj Pal Singh (PW 5) in compliance to the direction given by the In-charge of the Unit, recorded the statement of the complainant Ram Chandra (Ext. Ka-9) before starting the other formalities and obtained his signature thereon. The complainant had brought one currency note of Rs. 100/-, which the inspector received from him and after applying phenolphthalein powder quoting thereto and doing other formalities, washed his and the complainants hand and the solution was got sealed. He also put up his small signature on that currency note and thereafter he returned it to the Ram chandra instructing him to hand over this note only to the accused as and when demand by him at the bus station. He also prepared a memo of the aforesaid formalities in Ext. Ka-10 and obtained signature of Ram Chandra thereon. The Inspector Raj Pal Singh (PW 5) along with followers and Sub-Inspector Ram Autar proceeded for Kharkhauda and stopped his Jeep nearby the Kharkhauda Police Station and took the witnesses Satya Veer Singh (PW 2) and one Jaipal with him. Therefrom they proceeded for Kharkhauda bus station at about 11. 30 a. m. They reached near a tea stall at the bus station. The Pradhan of the village of complainant Hari Kishan (PW 1) was also with them. While the Inspector Raj Pal Singh along with others was standing at a distance of 5 paces from the complainant and Pradhan at the bus station, the appellant Data ram was seen approaching the bus station. The Pradhan and the accused exchanged their respects with each other and it is alleged that Data Ram asked the Pradhan Hari Kishan as to why others but PW 3 the Complainant, have not come. The Pradhan replied that the others are coming soon and he can reasonably deal first with Ram Chandra. PW 3 Ram Chandra told the accused data Ram that he could with great difficulty arrange the sum of Rs. 100/- to fulfill his demand and measurement of his land should be done. The appellant Data Ram replied that he had demanded the sum only for that purpose and that the demanded payment when made why he would not do the measurement. Thereafter the complainant took up the currency note of Rs. 100/- and handed it over to Data Ram, which he took by his right hand and then kissed it. PW 5 inspector Raj Pal Singh along with his followers etc, imm























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top